A guest post by Alan Harris, former elected member of Alba's Disciplinary Committee and Constitution Review Group, on why he was left with "no alternative" but to leave the Alba Party

(Editorial note from James Kelly: I have been asked by Alan Harris to publish his guest post, and the letter within it, in full and unabridged form.  I have agreed to do so.  It is important that Alan has the opportunity to set out the real facts in his own words and without interference from anyone.  However, if anybody from the Alba leadership happens to be passing by, please note that 'full and unabridged' means *exactly* what it says.  What you are about to read are 100% Alan's words, not mine.  The topics and information referred to have been decided upon by Alan, not by me.  Any objections the Alba leadership may have to the contents are therefore not a matter for me and should not be addressed to me.  Many thanks.)

In his blog on Monday, September 9, 2024, under the heading 'A personal statement on the Alba leadership's bizarre and unconstitutional decision to remove me from a directly elected party role' James Kelly wrote:

“The candidate who topped the poll (for the Constitution New Review Group) was within a few weeks effectively forced out of the party by some of the most disgraceful behaviour I've ever witnessed.” That person was me. Whilst I don’t completely agree with that statement, I did feel that I was left with no alternative, as I set out in my resignation letter below. James went on to say that “Without that person it was always going to be a much more uphill struggle”. That may have overstated the case, since the prime proponent of the Review Group procedure, Mike Baldry, was still onboard, with James. However, without James as well, and the NEC appointees and others ranged against him, the task Mike Baldry faces becomes Herculean, in my opinion.

Over the past week James has faced a barrage of personal messages and posts on X from Yvonne Ridley. I make no comment on these exchanges, but they have influenced my decision to publish my resignation letter now.

My resignation letter was sent to the Chair who responded by “thanking me for my service to the party, and indeed to our national cause”. Tasmina also thanked me “for so diligently serving our members and myself as Chair, in your additional role as steward at various party events.” I publish those comments not as an exercise in self-aggrandisement; but solely in case anything otherwise is suggested now. When I joined ALBA, I made a personal decision not to use social media for political purposes. I did share my resignation with a few selected friends but I did not publish the letter anywhere at the time, because I regarded it as an internal matter, though I have been falsely accused of a public resignation.

At the Disciplinary Meeting in March that I refer to in my resignation, the then Chair, Marjorie Ellis Thompson, used an unconstitutional procedure and unreasonably, in my opinion, postponed a case against Denise Somerville, which prejudiced the outcome, when the majority (3) of us were of the opinion that she had no case to answer. I will publish a follow up blog about Denise’s unsuccessful Appeal in due course.

Now it seems that James is going to be prosecuted under the same unconstitutional procedure. I make no comment about the rights and wrongs of any potential case against James, lest it prejudice any future appeal. However, this is another reason why I consider it is important that I publish my resignation letter now.

RESIGNATION FROM THE ALBA PARTY 

Dear Tasmina, 

I have been a member of the ALBA Party since my former SNP Kirkintilloch Convener, Delia Henry, joined ALBA and ran for the UK Parliament in 2021. 

I have been Secretary and Treasurer of ALBA East Dunbartonshire since inception in September 2021.

In May 2022, I was privileged to be selected as the ALBA Party candidate for Bishopbriggs North and Campsie in the Local Government Elections. 

I was elected to the Appeals Committee in 2022 but no cases came before the Committee. I was elected to the Disciplinary Committee at Stage 1 in 2023 and I was re-elected in 2024 with the most votes of any candidate. One case was presented to the Disciplinary Committee in 2023. 

At the outset I enquired if there was a Disciplinary Procedure and on being advised that there was not, the then Convener, Hamish Vernal invited me to write one on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee. My credentials were that I had served on the Disciplinary & Membership Committees of the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Association (FIMBRA) for 5 years under the Chairmanship of Sir Kenneth Clucas, the first Civil Service Commissioner, Permanent Secretary at two Government Departments and latterly Chairman of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux; the Recorder (Chief Magistrate) of the City of London; and leading barristers. The procedure I wrote went through three revisions and DCv4 was presented to the NEC in May 2023. In an email on the 25 th of July 2023, Hamish advised the Committee members that “The papers that I provided on the Process are now out for consideration to an external source. I outlined our wish, as previously agreed by the Chair, that whatever results from this comes back to the DC for consideration before going to NEC for approval. Thereafter to the October Conference. This process and timescale was (sic) confirmed.” On the 18 th of August 2023 Hamish advised the Committee members that “We are unanimous in our views. I conveyed this in a telephone call to the Party Chair late yesterday afternoon. I reiterated our view, confirmed to me by the Party Chair again, that we wished all documents…..DCv4, NECV6 and Alan’s commentary which we all endorsed….to go to an external lawyer specialising in this area. I was informed that the current version was “sense checked” only (by the General Secretary) and will go to the NEC on Saturday for comment. I expressed our view that we were unanimously unhappy with the current version……we had all expressed our views in writing. Following the NEC all documents including any comment from NEC will then go external to be “legalled”. I have this assurance.” 

Eva Comrie, herself a lawyer and then member of the NEC, has advised me that she did not see this legal advice. Hamish Vernal has advised me that the explanation given to the NEC was that it was too expensive to obtain full legal advice and that he did not see any other version of the Procedure. In addition, Hamish has stated that he was given a further assurance, when remitting office as the Convener of the DC at the December 2023 meeting of the NEC, that the final version would come back to the DC for comment and thereafter the DC version would be “rubber stamped” by the NEC.

Notwithstanding all the foregoing, a new Procedure labelled NECv2 was presented to the Disciplinary Committee as fait accompli in March 2024. In an email to Morgwn Davies and other Committee members on 7 March 2024 the General Secretary said that “The disciplinary policy was approved by the National Executive Committee as they are entitled to do so under 12.1(d) of the constitution… with the requirements of 12.3 to be fulfilled but the policy being deemed constitutional drawing on the rules set out in 12.7”. Furthermore, in a second email to Morgwn on 12 March 2024, the General Secretary said “The final version of the policy was drafted by me upon commission from the NEC. The Disciplinary Policy was agreed by the NEC on 30th September 2023”. If this is true it was unknown to the then Convener of the DC, Hamish Vernal and belies the assurance that he was given by the Chair at the NEC in December 2023. 

At the meeting of the Disciplinary Committee on 20 March 2024, I raised a point of order based on - 

Constitution: 

12.3 All such Rules and Standing Orders shall be submitted to the National Council or Conference for amendment and/or adoption. 

There was a national Conference on 28 October 2023 and National Council meetings on 1 December 2023 and 27 January 2024 but the new procedure was not submitted for approval. 

The General Secretary relied on Constitution 12.7 which gives him the power to “interpret” the Constitution between meetings; but this does not apply because no such Procedure has ever been adopted by National Council or Conference and in any event under 12.5 “This Constitution may not be changed, except by a vote of at least two-thirds of the delegates present and voting at National Conference, or by National Council in relation to a specific matter that National Conference has delegated to National Council.” 

I invited the current Convener of the Disciplinary Committee, Marjorie Thompson, to take advantage of - 

Constitution: 

12.6 Should any question arise regarding the interpretation of the Constitution, Rules or Standing Orders of the Party, the convener of the meeting shall adjudicate on the question and his or her adjudication shall be final, unless a motion is passed requiring the person to vacate the Chair. 

but she made various contradictory pronouncements and the meeting proceeded on the basis of the NECv2 (witness the fact that the Clerk to the Committee, which position has been introduced by NECv2), was in attendance.

The reason for all of this is not hard to understand. The entire Disciplinary Committee in 2023 and every member who has ever expressed an opinion on the subject are unanimous in the view that ALL complaints should be submitted to the Disciplinary Committee for investigation and adjudication.

However, the Constitution [11.6] has been interpreted as meaning that the Disciplinary Committee can ONLY take disciplinary measures against a member on the proposal of the General Secretary; and that the Disciplinary Committee can only investigate a complaint on the proposal of the General Secretary. 

This is a breach of one of the key principles of natural justice which is that:

* a complainant party is entitled to have its case heard by an unbiased and impartial tribunal 

In effect the rules are being interpreted in a way that means that: 

* the General Secretary is pre-judging complaints which is a second breach of the principles of natural justice. 

Therefore, the Disciplinary Committee (Hamish Vernal, Convener proposing and Alan Harris, member, seconding) proposed to Conference 2023 that: 

A new paragraph 11.6 be inserted: 

The General Secretary will acknowledge receipt of all written or verbal complaints and send full details of the complaint and any associated documents to the party about whom the compliant has been made by email or other electronic means within 7 days of receipt. At the same time, the General Secretary will refer the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee for investigation. 

This and many other motions were not submitted to conference (see below, Constitution New Review Group). 

The NEC v2 re-defines a "complaint" solely as a "proposal by the General Secretary" and appears to exclude any other form of complaint. 

The Constitution at 11.5 demands the immediate referral of suspended members to the DC and that was ignored for 4 weeks, 3 weeks and 10 days respectively.  

In two of the three cases before the Committee last Wednesday, the General Secretary stated that complaints had been submitted against the members concerned: in one case by another member; and in another case by a LACU; but these complaints were not produced in evidence. In one of the cases the member had made a counter complaint but, contrary to precedent that both cases should be heard together, this complaint was not presented to the Committee. In two of the cases, vital evidence in the form of a series of posts on X (formerly Twitter); and emails were omitted from the evidence. In one of the cases the Clerk to the Committee said that the member had not asked to attend the hearing whereas in fact he’d made two such requests and never been given the details. 

It is small wonder that the new Convener has resigned today. 

The one case that was adjudicated by the Disciplinary Committee in May 2023 was immediately appealed despite the fact that the appellant, who was also the defendant, failed to engage with the Committee despite seven emails. The Appeal was not heard for nine months, apparently because there was no procedure; although I wrote an outline procedure which was presented to the NEC at the same time as the appeal was lodged. Not surprisingly the appeal was upheld. 

I was elected to the Constitution New Review Group with almost more first preference votes than the next three candidates put together. 

However, I now find that the powers that be have imposed an unconstitutional procedure on the Disciplinary Committee which enshrines in our rules a procedure that is contrary to natural justice and this has already been implemented to the detriment of two members. That is unacceptable to me. It is clear to me that since this procedure has been imposed there is no chance whatsoever that the leadership will accept the limitation on the General Secretary’s assumed power of veto over complaints, indeed this has now been enhanced. Not only that, but in one of the cases before the Committee last week, the General Secretary actually expressed a view that the Committee should take action against the member and in another he expressed a view on the penalty that should be imposed by the Committee, all of which is wholly improper conduct, presumably endorsed by the Party Chair to whom the General Secretary reports. 

In an email on 4 March 2024, our Leader Alex Salmond stated that "Yvonne Ridley our Women’s Convener is stepping back from her role for a time. Ash Regan MSP ......will step in to lead for the party on this issue in the meantime.  Eva Comrie publicly resigned from ALBA. I regret this and thank Eva for her considerable contribution. Our constitution and rules are clear, however, and subject to NEC approval I have asked Suzanne Blackley, a former Holyrood candidate for ALBA, to serve as our interim Equalities Convener until an election can be held at the next meeting of National Council or at our Annual Conference."

So, there is reference to an election for Equalities Convener but not Women's Convener. However, Morgwn Davies has reported that at their meeting on Wednesday 13 March 2024, Ash "said that she was acting Women's Convener until the next election for that position." And that Yvonne Ridley was free to stand in that election if she so wished. 

1. Therefore, it's clear that both positions are being treated in the same way. 

2. This is confirmed on the ALBA website: Interim National Women’s Convener - Ash Regan MSP; Interim National Equalities Convener - Suzanne Blackley. 

3. Yvonne Ridley is not an elected member of the NEC, she and all other office bearers owe their position to their national offices.

4. Since Yvonne Ridley is not currently the Women’s Convener she cannot be a member of the NEC. 

5. Since Yvonne Ridley is not a member of the NEC she cannot be an NEC delegate to the Constitution New Review Group (CNRG).

Our Constitution and Rules are indeed clear. 

However, the Convener, Hamish Vernal gave an apology for Yvonne Ridley’s absence at the CNRG meeting on 12 March 2024 and it is my understanding that the Party Chair sought to justify this at the NEC meeting on 16 March 2024. 

There is a second aspect to these resignations: 

Constitution: 

8.6 If a National Office Bearer’s post falls vacant before its term, the vacancy shall be filled by National Council in accordance with National Council Standing Orders.  

Annex C - Standing Orders of the National Executive Committee 

12.3 Should a vacancy arise for any elected position on the NEC then the vacancy shall be filled in the first instance by the candidate that finished next in the respective ballot. 

Therefore, Heather McLean who was next in line at the election should have been appointed to replace Yvonne Ridley and Abdul Majid who was the only other candidate, should have been appointed to replace Eva Comrie. 

In the light of all the foregoing I find myself in a dilemma. Hamish, Heather and Daniel Jack were good enough to endorse my candidature for these Committees. And, I am deeply indebted to all the members who put their faith in me by voting me on to these Committees where they expected me to use my experience to fight for justice and constitutional change. On the other hand, how can I continue to sit on these Committees in the face of all of the above breaches of the Constitution and the likelihood of significant change is remote. I stood for good governance and proper procedures. Not only have I failed to deliver but my continued membership of these Committees appears to endorse these malpractices. 

I have concluded that I cannot continue without doing irreparable damage to my integrity and that is not something that I will sacrifice for any organisation. 

Therefore, I have no alternative other than to resign from the ALBA Party with immediate effect. 

Yours sincerely

Alan S Harris 

25 March 2024